Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

15,000 scientists issue 'warning to humanity'

89 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77
31 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Maybe they actually THINK about what all the real problems are, and focus on those that can be solved, instead of handwaving simplistic claims about high population being the 'only' issue..?

If you honestly believe that..., words fail me.

The mental gymnastics which are required to maintain this as a political issue are truly impressive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cerberusxp
On 11/13/2017 at 8:57 AM, UM-Bot said:

Thousands of scientists from 184 countries have issued a stark warning about the future of our planet.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/313309/15000-scientists-issue-warning-to-humanity

Yeah looky here actually plants need more co2 LINK

Oh and we're all gonna drown LINK

Edited by cerberusxp
Added link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
15 hours ago, paperdyer said:

Seriously, why we need consumerism?  People need to work so they can eat and take care of their families.  No one NEEDS a new iPhone or Galaxy S every 6 months.  All these help to do is dumb down society. "Look a new amimoji!"  Give me a break!  Until John Lennon's dream of "Imagine" is realized, we are headed for destruction as a race.  Which sort of brings us back around to the first post "Greed"

It isn't "greed" to have belongings as long as they don't cause suffering and damage in their production. And some of us like going out to work, being paid and buying things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Maybe they actually THINK about what all the real problems are, and focus on those that can be solved, instead of handwaving simplistic claims about high population being the 'only' issue..?

If you honestly believe that..., words fail me.

All the REAL problems are caused by the exponential growth of the Human population, every person on this planet has an ecological footprint, land that must be cultivated to feed them, or put aside for feeding stock, that's land cleared of trees, the lungs of this planet, until we grasp the nettle and have a program of World population reduction (through contraception and birth limits) anything we do to reduce Mans effect is a waste of time, because the population will keep on growing and more resources will have to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
8 hours ago, Scarlatti said:

And will these same scientists promote the only solution: curbing the breeding rates in the third world and muslim countries. No, because apparently being PC is still more important than saving the planet.

If a family of 5 in a first world country would stop using as much of the Earth's resources as a village of 100 in a third world country, you might have a point.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paperdyer
6 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

It isn't "greed" to have belongings as long as they don't cause suffering and damage in their production. And some of us like going out to work, being paid and buying things.

Not greed on your part.  Having to have the newest and greatest of everything then trashing the old is bad for the environment. My whole point was if "Imagine" came to be, the "need" would be gone.  Will this ever happen, no.  We wouldn't be humans if it did.  That nmeed is what made the human race what it is, for good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spud the mackem
On ‎14‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 4:01 PM, Michelle said:

After Walter Conkite announced to the world my city was the dirtiest in the US in 1969 the local government was so insulted they stepped up. Now we have an exceptional air quality track record. No feds needed.

Maybe we should insult China and they will stop hurling millions of tons of pollution into the sky.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson

could all this be leading to mass migrations and refugee camps in the next seven years? That's the estimate until the great stink isn't it seven years?

 

Edited by trevor borocz johnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
7 hours ago, seanjo said:

All the REAL problems are caused by the exponential growth of the Human population, every person on this planet has an ecological footprint, land that must be cultivated to feed them, or put aside for feeding stock, that's land cleared of trees, the lungs of this planet, until we grasp the nettle and have a program of World population reduction (through contraception and birth limits) anything we do to reduce Mans effect is a waste of time, because the population will keep on growing and more resources will have to be used.

I'll concede that population growth is AN issue, but until anyone offers up a solution that will be amenable to all the differing cultural, religious, political aspects.. do you not think it might be a more sensible move to attack the problem from the other direction, which is what science is trying to do.  Namely identify the worst and most pressing of the environmental problems and then unleash the debate on how those problems can be addressed.  The greenhouse / global warming issue can be addressed pretty substantially without trying to kill off people... (reducing the birthrate takes too long....)

And I'm only being slightly tongue in cheek..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

15,000 Scientists huh ? Weeeell... I wonder what their area of expertise is ? 

The co-author of the report is a PhD is Social Science,

Ihttp://liberalarts.vt.edu/faculty-directory/sts-faculty/eileen-crist.html

Social Science degrees do not make you a "scientist". And being a professor in a Liberal Arts faculty doesn't make you competent to pontificate on ANY "real" science. So I wonder what the other 14,999 "scientists" specialise in  ? Transgender Dance Studies ? Palestinian Flute Music ? 

This particular endeavour appears to be an agenda group based in Oregon. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

15,000 Scientists huh ? Weeeell... I wonder what their area of expertise is ? 

Weeell, maybe you should check...

Quote

The co-author of the report is a PhD is Social Science,

Ihttp://liberalarts.vt.edu/faculty-directory/sts-faculty/eileen-crist.html

Social Science degrees do not make you a "scientist".

Actually, that is pretty dam insulting - yes it does - it makes you a scientist in *that field*.  You see, RG, as you would know if you had any exposure to science, being a co-author to a report that simply summarizes the findings of many other scientists, means that you should be attacking the scientists and what they say about their fields, rather than taking a cheap shot at someone who may simply be an organiser/collator.  And if you are going to have a go at someone as inexperienced, you should really tell the full story - you left some stuff out, in particular that she is now an Assoc. Professor.  Her BA was in sociology and she gained her PhD (doctorate) specialising in life sciences and society.  She has since studied environmental evolution and has done post-doctoral fellowships at the University of California, San Diego and Cornell, and now is Assoc Prof at Virginia Tech in the Department of Science and Technology in Society.

I've got to ask.. did you read the article?

Let's quote from it:

Quote

The campaign was started by William Ripple of Oregon State University's College of Forestry who, along with graduate student Christopher Wolf, conducted a revised analysis of each of the concerns that had been raised a quarter of a century ago.  With the exception of a rapid decline in the rate of ozone depletion, the findings were grim.  In addition to climate change, Ripple highlighted multiple environmental concerns including ocean dead zones, dwindling biodiversity, forest losses and unsustainable marine fisheries.

So, RG, why not find out who the scientists were on those specific areas, and tell us how they are not qualified or what they stated that was incorrect.  Also tell us how that you know better, and that biodiversity is just fine, there aren't forest losses, there aren't unsustainable marine fisheries (- hey I should check that one, as I used to manage a marine research lab... indeed I will - there are a LOT of unsustainable marine fisheries in bothe developed and undeveloped regions, and with ocean temperatures increasing (and they ARE) and pollution from farm chemical run-off, etc that can only get worse - just up the road from me is the Great Barrier Reef, and frankly, it's in significant trouble already.)

Quote

And being a professor in a Liberal Arts faculty doesn't make you competent to pontificate on ANY "real" science. So I wonder what the other 14,999 "scientists" specialise in  ? Transgender Dance Studies ? Palestinian Flute Music ? 

Oh, how amusing..  Yes, I'm sure that applies to these scientists..:rolleyes:.. but maybe I'll wait until you point out some examples that are anything like that.

Anyway, here's the bit where that co-author comments:

Quote

Co-author Professor Eileen Crist also echoed the concerns highlighted in the report.

"We are in the throes of a mass extinction event that is anthropogenic," she said. "If we lose 50 to 75 per cent of the species on the planet in this century - which is what scientists are telling us what will occur if we continue to operate as business-as-usual. If this happens, this can not be fixed."

So, RG, what is it that is wrong in what she says?  Do you not think it is allowable for an Assoc Professor in Sociology to express concerns about the future of society..?  Or that she has exceeded her expertise or is working to an agenda?  If so, cite why you think that.

Quote

This particular endeavour appears to be an agenda group based in Oregon. 

OK, please explain exactly how that 'appears' to be the case.  It's not good science to handwave, as you would know, right?

 

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

Anyone can get an 'ology' Ph.D.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
7 minutes ago, seanjo said:

Anyone can get an 'ology' Ph.D.

Yeah. Anyone who does the work and learns the subject. So?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Weeell, maybe you should check...

Actually, that is pretty dam insulting - yes it does - it makes you a scientist in *that field*.

Which - presumably - is why her bachelors degree in sociology is a BA (Bachelor of ARTS) rather than a BSc (Bachelor of SCIENCE).

I'm aware of the logical fallacy of ad-hominem. However, this sort of "science" stunt really annoys me. Getting 15,000 "scientists" around the world to sign up to a statement makes for a very effective media stunt. But REAL science isn't a democracy.

I tried to find the list of the 15,000 scientists; although the linked document REFERS to this list, it doesn't appear to have actually published it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socks Junior

I got a BA. In geophysics. I now research paleomagic. So it all fits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
37 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

I got a BA. In geophysics. I now research paleomagic. So it all fits.

Umm... what is paleomagic ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socks Junior
47 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm... what is paleomagic ?

Old magic.

 

Kidding. It's a nickname for paleomagnetism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I tried to find the list of the 15,000 scientists; although the linked document REFERS to this list, it doesn't appear to have actually published it.

The actual article you are criticising World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice published by BioScience on 13th November, clearly contains a link at the end (in the "Epilogue") to a pdf (supplemental file S2) that you can download, containing the full list.   I haven't have as yet gone through all 595 pages to check the signatories credentials ;) 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
8 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Yeah. Anyone who does the work and learns the subject. So?

So real science's like Engineering or Physics are not open to all, they need intelligence and a talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
19 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I'll concede that population growth is AN issue, but until anyone offers up a solution that will be amenable to all the differing cultural, religious, political aspects.. do you not think it might be a more sensible move to attack the problem from the other direction, which is what science is trying to do.  Namely identify the worst and most pressing of the environmental problems and then unleash the debate on how those problems can be addressed.  The greenhouse / global warming issue can be addressed pretty substantially without trying to kill off people... (reducing the birthrate takes too long....)

And I'm only being slightly tongue in cheek..

The point is, unless the population growth issue is addressed, then any other solution is a quick temporary fix, a sticking plaster.

 

Now, I know this is never going to happen, for the cultural etc. reasons you listed, which means at some point in the future population reduction will be forced on us with famine, war and the inevitable diseases that go with that...I doubt we will be alive then, but maybe our kids or grandkids will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, seanjo said:

The point is, unless the population growth issue is addressed, then any other solution is a quick temporary fix, a sticking plaster.

 

Now, I know this is never going to happen, for the cultural etc. reasons you listed, which means at some point in the future population reduction will be forced on us with famine, war and the inevitable diseases that go with that...I doubt we will be alive then, but maybe our kids or grandkids will be.

Indeed Seanjo !

Soylent Green anyone ? :D  

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haroldbattschits

Imagine if the population of the earth today if the two "great wars" did not occur. We might be dealing with severe starvation and other overpopulation issues. Nature,  as well as humans will always find a way to thin the herd. If not, we are headed for trouble. Hawking feels that we have already passed the tipping point. He's a pretty smart guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChaosRose

And just like before...no one's gonna give a ****.

Someone needs to tell scientists that facts don't matter anymore. 

They keep banging their heads against brick walls for no reason. 

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
On 16/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, seanjo said:

So real science's like Engineering or Physics are not open to all, they need intelligence and a talent.

So they are open to all then - but like anything in life you are only going to get on with something if you're good at it (or just very lucky).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
11 hours ago, Haroldbattschits said:

Imagine if the population of the earth today if the two "great wars" did not occur. We might be dealing with severe starvation and other overpopulation issues. Nature,  as well as humans will always find a way to thin the herd. If not, we are headed for trouble. Hawking feels that we have already passed the tipping point. He's a pretty smart guy

Actually, the world wars didn't kill all that many people.   Many more people died if Spanish 'flu than in WWI, for example

Meanwhile, the key to curbing population growth is increased prosperity (one reason why most "western" nations now have negative growth, excluding immigration).   But the problem is that those in prosperous "western" nations, earning far more money than they ever really need, also want cheap food and throw-away gadgets from "3rd world" countries ......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.